WORKSHOP #2 RESULTS

INTRODUCTION

After an informational workshop on the projects (18 September 2007), participants at Workshop #2 (October 2, 2007) were asked to provide input on:

• Criteria for evaluating alternative project approaches
• The possible project components that they felt were most/least important

One hundred and thirty five (135) people signed in at Workshop #2 and were assigned to one of twelve small groups.  It is estimated that 110 people participated in brainstorming and voting on criteria for evaluating alternative project approaches.  One hundred and ten (110) people submitted worksheets rating the relative importance of possible components of the E. Stadium Boulevard Improvements project.  Ninety nine (99) people submitted worksheets rating the relative importance of possible components of the S. Main Non-motorized Improvements project.

Because they are extremely concerned about the possible impact of adding non-motorized improvements on the E. Stadium Boulevard and S. Main Street edges of the golf course, many members of Ann Arbor Golf & Outing (AAGO) attended the workshop.  Results reflect this high turn out of AAGO members.

ALTERNATIVES EVALUATION CRITERIA

Participants brainstormed ideas on criteria that should be used to evaluate alternative project approaches.  Then, they voted for the criteria they felt were most important on both their brainstorming list and a pre-printed list of preliminary ideas provided by the project team.  Click here to see the full results.

The criteria that received the highest number of votes were:

POSSIBLE PROJECT COMPONENTS

Participants were asked to indicate on individual worksheets how important they felt possible components of the E. Stadium Boulevard Improvements and S. Main Non-motorized Improvements projects were.  A scale of 1 – 10 was used, with 1 indicating “extremely important”, 5 indicating “moderately important” and 10 indicating “not at all important.”  It appears that many participants used the rating system to indicate possible project components that they supported or opposed.  Participants were also invited to add ideas to the worksheets and to provide comments.

Click here to see the group by group worksheet summaries.  The number of worksheets submitted at each table are listed on the summaries.  Click here to see a summary of results from all 12 groups.

The ratings of “most important” (rated 1 – 3) and “least important” (rated 8 – 10) for each possible project component (presented in the order they appeared on worksheets) are summarized below. 

East Stadium Project Components3

Workshop participants also suggested alternatives/possible project components to be considered.  Eleven (11) workshop participants suggested considering a reduction in the number of travel and turn lanes on E. Stadium Boulevard as “most important.”

South Main Project Components4

Workshop participants also suggested alternatives/possible project components to be considered.  Thirteen (13) workshop participants suggested  adding a pedestrian crosswalk on S. Main Street at Scio Church with an east side path south to Busch’s (no path to north on east side) as “most important.”
 

INTERPRETING THE RESULTS

Evaluation Criteria

The voting on alternatives evaluation criteria underlines the importance of balancing the objective of improving safety and mobility for bicyclists and pedestrians with the need to minimize impacts on adjacent property owners and the environment.  (The potential loss of existing vegetation was considered very important – both in terms of its impact on the character of abutting properties and the visual quality of important City streets.)  Cost implications (including costs associated with right-of-way acquisition, construction and detours/driver delays) were also voted one of the top 5 evaluation criteria.

Possible E. Stadium Boulevard Improvements

Bridges.  Replacing both the S. State and AARR bridges at the same time was considered “most important”7 by about half the participants who filled out worksheets.  About a third of those participants thought widening the span of the S. State bridge to create a gateway to Downtown and UM Athletic campus “most important.”

Bridge Non-motorized Improvements.  Almost half of the participants submitting worksheets indicated that they thought the addition of bike lanes on the bridges was “least important.”  The majority also rated the addition of a sidewalk on the south side of the bridge as “least important” and a wider sidewalk on the north side of the bridge(s) as “most important.”

Retaining Walls.  Most participants who provided a rating on this possible project component indicated that it was “least important.”

Pedestrian Link from E. Stadium to S. State.  For those who provided a rating on this possible project component, opinion was split about 50/50 between “most important” and “least important”.

Storm water Management.  The majority providing a rating on this possible project component thought it was “most important.”

Roadway Non-motorized Improvements.  About half of the participants who submitted work sheets rated the addition of bike lanes as “least important.”  The majority of participants rated the addition of a sidewalk on the south side of E. Stadium Boulevard as “least important.” 

Reduction of Right-turn Lane Length.  Although the majority of participants who rated this possible improvement indicated it was “least important,” they may not have understood that reduction of the length of north side right-turn lane could reduce impacts on the AAGO and UM golf courses. 

White/Stadium Intersection.  Re-configuring the White/Stadium intersection was rated as “most important” by the majority of participants who rated this item.

Possible S. Main Non-motorized Improvements

Non-motorized Improvements.  More participants who turned in work sheets rated bicycle improvements as “most important” than rated pedestrian improvements as “most important.”  In both cases, however, a greater number of participants rated these improvements as “least important.” 

Type of Improvements.  The majority of participants rated widening the existing west side path as “most important” and the construction of a new shared use path on east side as “least important.” 

In rating the possible widening of S. Main Street to the west and/or re-dimensioning travel and turn lanes, it appears that participants were reacting to the addition of a sidewalk on the east side of S. Main Street, rather than to the merits of these options.  Each could reduce the level of impact on adjacent east side property owners.  Nevertheless, almost half of the participants submitting worksheets rated these possible improvements as “least important.” 

East Side Sidewalk Dimensions.  There was no clear indication of preferred sidewalk width from those who felt a sidewalk on the east side of S. Main was “most important.”  The majority of participants who rated this possible project component indicated it was “least important.”

NEXT STEPS

Citizens Advisory Committee

A Citizens Advisory Committee (CAC) will be appointed by City Council.  It is currently anticipated that the CAC will be appointed in early November 2007.  The project team will work with the CAC to review workshop input, finalize alternatives evaluation criteria and determine whether weighting of some criteria as more important than others is appropriate.  The CAC will also review workshop ratings of possible project components to confirm and/or redefine the alternative project approaches that should be evaluated.  Then, the CAC will work with the project team to complete the alternatives evaluation with the goal of recommending a preferred project approach.  The time table for accomplishing these tasks will be determined after the CAC has been appointed.

Stakeholder Meetings

In the interim, the project team will continue to meet with major stakeholders (including AAGO, UM, Ann Arbor Transportation Authority, Ann Arbor Public Schools) to identify and work through issues which are critical to them.  The discussions and recommendations from these stakeholder meetings will be reviewed with the CAC and help to inform their decision-making process.

Planning Commission and City Council Briefings

It is anticipated that the project team will provide regular updates on their work to the Planning Commission and City Council on the behalf of the CAC.

Next Public Workshop

No date for the next public workshop has been set; the project schedule will remain flexible until CAC is appointed and its work is underway.  It is anticipated that the next workshop will focus on the results of the analysis of alternative project approaches and a discussion of the preferred project approach recommended by the CAC.  Once a project approach has been identified, subsequent workshops will focus on design alternatives.